Excerpt:
There was one side of Freeland, in particular, that McQuaig kept poking: Her supposed un-Canadianness. “Toronto is my home, I’ve lived and worked here all my life,” McQuaig noted in her opening remarks. It was a clear side swipe at Freeland, who’s been abroad for years in Russia, the U.K. and the U.S., and settled down in Toronto Centre only recently. Later on came McQuaig’s straight-out jab: “You’ve been there in Manhattan, hanging out with the rich,” McQuaig told Freeland, speaking, for those in the know, about her competitor’s former gig in New York and her recent book on the ultra-rich.
I suspect Freeland chose not to respond in kind. Because if she’d wanted to, there was an obvious line of attack. For all her fondness of being a true Canadian and disdain for hanging out in Manhattan, McQuaig has publicly praised a controversial U.S. law that might end up encroaching on the constitutional rights of a good many Canadians, including, possibly, Freeland and her family.
@Calgary &OAP
Sure reads that way to me. I can’t imagine what the point of looking for the indicia is except to report the accounts. ??????
I read the whole IGA OAP and still can’t believe any country could sign one. So completely slanted in favour of the US. Thanks again for taking the time to find all that. Really appreciate it!
@Tricia
Great, isn’t it?
First things first – a ‘low value’ account is an account between US$50,000 and US$ 1 million, and is reportable. A pre-existing ‘deposit’ account, below $50,000, is (supposedly) a non-reportable account.
When reading the IGA, it’s important to understand the difference between ‘reviewing accounts’ (looking for US Person indicia) and the ‘reporting’ of accounts. The reporting thresholds vary between the types of accounts. The threshold for an insurance linked account is US$250,000 for example. As mentioned in a previous post, the FFI can also establish a lower threshold than $50,000 under the UK Model 1 IGA.
In response to one of your previous comments – the 2016 date for reporting – yes, the Deloitte info tallies with the UK IGA, but that is the final date for ‘depository’ accounts (unless FATCA is pushed back further). Other accounts may vary. The final date for ‘high value’ accounts to be identified is 2017.
Even so, it is not straightforward. As an example:
Many years ago I opened an account at a UK building society. It’s UK based, and serves only UK resident persons. The account is fixed for 1 year, and at the end of that year, you have an option to re-invest the funds into a new fixed account. When originally opening the account, 3 utility bills were required to establish residence, and personal identification was required. In all honesty, I can’t remember what I used for personal ID. It may have been a driving license, or it may have been a US Passport (it was before I had British Citizenship).
I have just received my yearly notice of maturity on that account (Dec. 2013), with several types of offers for re-investment. There is NO reference in the papers to the ‘nationality’ of the account holder and the US Person question is not asked. The offers range from a 1 year fixed rate account to a 5 year fixed rate account.
The conundrum:
It is, and will be, a pre-existing, deposit, low value (more than $50,000) account for FATCA purposes since it will have been opened prior to 1 Jan. 2014. Someone may say “Ah-ha, it’s a local building society, and due to the IGA, local building societies are ‘deemed compliant’ “. Unfortunately, to be deemed compliant, the building society can not have assets totalling over $175,000. This society, according to it’s latest end of year report is above that figure (it’s profits for the last quarter were above that figure). Therefore, the whole ‘review’ and ‘reporting’ apply to any accounts in this society, and being a low value account, it must be reported.
If I select the I year fixed account (and remember, their records today probably don’t identify me as a US Person), the electronic search to be done starting 1 July 2014 will probably turn up nothing. Upon maturity in Dec. 2014, ‘THE QUESTION’ (are you a US Person?) will probably be asked, and it will fit within the time limit to identify US Person accounts by 2016.
If I select the 5 year option, then maturity will be in 2018, far beyond the 2016 final date. Therefore, one supposes that ‘The Question’ must be asked before 2016. That’s why I say the work on identifying accounts will go for years beyond the initial 1 July 2014 electronic search, not only for high value accounts, but for low value accounts as well.
(As an aside, I will be reporting the account on both an FBAR and form 8938, as I have been doing in the past. I’m afraid I’m one of those locked into the system, and renunciation is the only out.)
Again, and not to keep repeating myself, no one knows at this time what the banks are going to do because in my opinion, I don’t believe the banks know at this time what they’re going to do. To top it off, as I said in a previous post, the IGA is subject to interpretation. So, what one bank using Deloitte as an advisor may have as a solution may be different to another bank using PWC as an advisor.
Summation: it’s a mess, and it will only be (similar to Obamacare) known how the banks will respond once the reporting is up and running.
Go Canada! You do not want to be in our position where a government has rolled over enthusiastically and thrown its US Persons under the bus. We can now only sit and watch (and rally against CBT).
@OAP
Wow, that is really, really helpful. Thank you! I shall persevere! Another thing that banker objected to was my perception that the IGA signing was imminent. He said the banks don’t know that at all, even though many of us have the impression it’s a “done deal.”
@Chris
Yes, it was RBC:
http://tinyurl.com/ledpteg
“The controversy stems from RBC’s plans to outsource IT work done for its Dexia investor service to iGate Corp., a U.S.-based company that operates primarily in India.”
While this isn’t necessarily representative of searching/reporting accounts, it brings to mind the potential for errors and loss of privacy, which I believe is what OAP is uncomfortable with (as are all the rest of us!). And a US company to boot!
@Calgary
Thanks, though it is clear, I didn’t get it right! 😉
The conversation’s getting kind of funny now, in that a commenter is quoting Isaac Brock in support of Linda McQuaig.
@Tim
I can’t find when Linda McQuaigs book “Billionaires’ Ball” was published. I’d like to respond to claims made in the article’s comments from someone calling himself Steven Smith that “There is no way you can charge that McQuaig supports measures that had not been made evident, or proposed at the time that she wrote what she wrote just because she supported the general idea.”
Should she have known about the potentially devastating effect FATCA would have on a great number of Canadians at the time her book was published?
Billionaires’ Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality By Linda McQuaig, Neil Brooks: Excerpt re FATCA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McQuaig
Tim’s post on this: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/09/22/linda-mcquaig-and-neil-brooks-traitors-to-canada-on-fatca/
Petros, December 2011 post on FATCA: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2011/12/11/fatca-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-the-economy/ and we were discussing at expatforum.com earlier before being censored into starting this Isaac Brock Society site.
She surely SHOULD know the devastating effects NOW and have addressed it — some of us have sent her correspondence that asked questions, none of whom to my knowledge have gotten any response back from her, including during her present candidacy campaign. Total silence on FATCA, right?
Thanks Calgary411.
Please feel free to pipe in on my conversation with Steven Smith, an apologist for Linda McQuaig!
bubblebustin,
I have; it doesn’t show – yet (and I didn’t copy it).
@Calgary411
TKS! I still don’t see it either.
Murray Rankin @MurrayRankin 6m
Great article by @LindaMcQuaig: Harper ramps up his war on independent thought | iPolitics http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/09/17/harper-ramps-up-his-war-on-independent-thought/ … via #cdnpoli #CRA
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 1m
@MurrayRankin @LindaMcQuaig I’ll take her thoughts seriously when she and Neil Brooks apologize to all those “not rich” hurt by #FATCA.
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 4m
@MurrayRankin “The reporting requirements in FATCA, assuming they survive the lobbying onslaught, could go a long way…(cont.)
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 2m
@MurrayRankin …toward preventing U.S. citizens from hiding money offshore.” ~ Linda McQuaig & Neil Brooks. “Billionaires’ Ball”
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 1m
@MurrayRankin You know from the onslaught of people’s testimony such as Carol T. that #FATCA hurts those of modest means.
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 1m
@MurrayRankin …yet Linda McQuaig supports FATCA.
Absolutely disgusted that Murray Rankin opted to give this woman a platform for her thoughts.
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 15m
@MurrayRankin @LindaMcQuaig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANqVaEpRi_4 … – You consider Carol Tapanila one of the “filthy rich”? Ms. McQuaig?! She’s NOT! #FATCA
Wildlife Photog @pro_photog1970 15m
@MurrayRankin @LindaMcQuaig I think YOU owe her an apology.
Betcha that I won’t get a reply from @LindaMcQuaig.
Thanks, The Animal.
I do hope you get a reply from Murray Rankin. He was one MP that sought me out after talking with NDP Ontario MP Mike Sullivan (in the YouTube video) and called me at my home to hear my family’s story. I will be very disappointed if he fails to remember and more disappointed if he would think me of the “filthy rich” (and why are all “rich” filthy?). I would also appreciate Ms McQuaig’s views on that.
I have tried to correspond with Linda McQuaig many times and never got the courtesy of any reply. Neil Brooks, Ms. McQuaig’s co-author, did answer my correspondence at first which was encouraging, but soon that stopped.